1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 ***

6 JOHNNY EDWARD MCMAHON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00402-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Petitioner Johnny Edward McMahon, a pro se Nevada prisoner, has not properly 13 commenced this habeas action by either paying the standard $5.00 filing fee or filing an 14 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Also before the Court is 15 Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 1-1) and Motion for Appointment of 16 Counsel (ECF No. 1-2). Following initial review, the Court concludes that the petition is 17 subject to multiple substantial defects and dismisses this action. 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner indirectly challenges a 2008 judgment of conviction entered by the 20 Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County.1 Petitioner was convicted of three counts 21 of sexual assault of a minor under the age of sixteen, three counts of statutory sexual 22 seduction, and one count of open and gross lewdness. The Nevada Supreme Court 23 affirmed the convictions on appeal. 24 The Nevada courts denied Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition seeking post- 25 conviction relief. This Court later denied federal habeas corpus relief. See McMahon v. 26

27 1The Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Eighth Judicial District Court and Nevada appellate courts. The docket records may be accessed by the public online at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx and 1 Neven, Case No. 2:14-cv-00076-APG-CHW, ECF No. 73 (denying § 2254 petition on its 2 merits as well as a certificate of appealability). The Ninth Circuit then denied a certificate 3 of appealability. Id. at ECF No. 73. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Petitioner improperly filed his petition as one for “Writ of Mandamus.” Petitioner 6 challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth Judicial District Court for 7 Clark County. Because Petitioner is in custody under a Nevada judgment of conviction, a 8

petition is the only potential avenue of federal relief. See White v. 9 Lambert,

(9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Hayward 10 v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 11 In addition, a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a state 12 court or state supreme court, whether by direct appeal, writ of mandamus, writ of 13 prohibition, an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, or otherwise. See, e.g., Rooker v. 14 Fidelity Trust Co.,

(1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

, 15 482-86 (1983); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,

(9th Cir. 2003). Generally, the 16 Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents “a party losing in state court . . . from seeking what in 17 substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district 18 court.” Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,

, 611 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 19 As noted above, this Court denied federal habeas corpus relief in 2017. See 20 McMahon v. Neven, Case No. 2:14-cv-00076-APG-CHW, ECF No. 73. The Antiterrorism 21 and Effective Death Penalty Act generally limits habeas petitioners to one round of federal 22 habeas review.

. Petitioner has already received federal habeas review 23 of his conviction. To receive further collateral review, he must secure permission from the 24 Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition.2 See Brown v. Muniz, 25

(9th Cir. 2018) (under § 2244(b)(3), federal district courts lack 26

27 2The All Writs Act,

, allows the Court to grant extraordinary writs where the Court has jurisdiction. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson,

, 28 33-34 (2002). Thus, it does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction for a petition 1 || jurisdiction to entertain a petitioner's successive habeas petition absent permission from 2 || the court of appeals to do so). 3 || IV. CONCLUSION 4 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court will file the Petition for Writ of 5 || Mandamus (ECF No. 1-1) on the docket. 6 It is further ordered that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 1-1) is denied 7 || for lack of jurisdiction. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 15 Day of September 2023. 10 4 CLO - 11 MIRANDA M. DU 42 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28